Re: How hackers cause damage... was Vulnerabilites in new laws on computer hacking

[dave <fla.linux () gmail com>]

Good points???

> 1   Loss of human life (though systems damage)
How can a kid trying to crack his friends server cost someone their life?

> 2   Insolvancy and the resultant human costs (lost jobs, etc)
Pretty much same answer as above

I think a point was missed...We were initially talking about some kid who is trying to learn about computers by 
cracking various machines. Not some *super hacker* with the ability to bring down serious systems. I think the point I 
made was also overlooked...

If you are hell bent for leather and you simply must learn how to break into computers then at the very least be wise about what systems you try to crack into! Dont mess with production systems...dont mess with bank, hospitals, any big corporate company. Dont ever mess with any real businesses period. Dont think about government or law enforcment systems etc... Dont run "untested" exploits on otherwise important servers where crashing would be serious problem. As far as someone losing their life...please give a (realistic) example or two of how a human life was lost cause a kid tried to crack his friends web server or exploit some unpatched SSH deamon on some machine at his dinky little job. As far as someone losing his job...in an extreme scenario this could happen but not if the newbie cracker is wise in his choice of targets (if you can not be wise regarding your targets then you shouldnt be cracking computers). And as harsh as this may sound I will say it anyway...If some otherwise unskilled script kiddie, can break into your *important* system and do something bad enough to cause someone to possibly lose their life then you as the admin should be fired! 

I also mentioned the financial burden 'Non malicous' attacks imposes on companies in resonding to the break-in. Once 
again...be wise about your targets...think small and realistic. You are NOT Aleph one or Mitnick or who ever...You are a script 
kiddie just trying to learn how it works. If you are at the point where your are bored with basic servers and want to venture 
into mainframe or otherwise corporate hacking then you are really no longer just some kid trying to learn and therefore you no 
longer are the point of this topic.

#### Kids trying to learn about computers who break into small scale 
targets and do no harm should do NO time!
#### skilled crackers/hackers who cause harm (be it intential or not) on 
important/critical systems should know better and should be 
prosicuted/punished accordingly. If someone lost their life due to a 
careless cracker then manslaughter charges should follow etc...



ROB DIXON wrote:

> Well put Craig.
> You made some good points regarding the so called "NON-Malicous attacks".
>
>
>
> Robert L. Dixon,  CSO
> CHFI A+
> State of West Virginia's 
> West Virginia Office of Techonology
> Infrastructure Applications
> Netware/GroupWise Administrator
> Telephone: (304)-558-5472 ex.4225 
> Email:rdixon () workforcewv org
>  
>
> > > > "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>  >>>
> > > >        
>
> Hello,
> There have been a large number of ill-informed posts regarding damage caused by cyber-trespass. This is for the purpose 
> of this post described as breaking into a system with no clear intent to cause damage i.e. no Mens Rea or guilty mind. 
> I will exclude all references to intention to damage or wilful damage and limit this to reckless damage alone.
>
> Next, I will exclude Mens Rea as it may pertain to the fact that the act of committing a computer crime is by 
> definition illegal. We all seem to understand that breaking into a computer without permission is a breach of the law 
> so I shall not explore this avenue of argument.
>
> The term in law refers to "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", which means that "the act will not make a person 
> guilty unless the mind is also guilty. This is a common defence in criminal cases though it will not help you in a civil tort case 
> (i.e. civil damages).
>
> With the seeming ignorant state that exists (not to all reading) to the levels of damage caused by breaking into 
> systems and committing cyber-trespass I will endeavour to detail the resultant state of affairs.
>
> I will aim solely at corporate systems for the critique following. This is not to state that Government, privately run 
> or organisational systems have any lesser effects resultant from attack, but that this is a post and not a dissertation 
> (though it is moving in that direction).
>
> First we have the argument that has been fielded that at worst a system would just need to be rebuilt. A prior poster 
> stated that he would analyse his system and track the incident. For the majority of the world this is not so simple. 
> Most people are not skilled in either incident response techniques or digital forensic science (please note computer 
> forensics is a misnomer and grammatically incorrect). Nor are most companies able to afford to rebuild systems on a 
> regular basis for the fun of it.
>
> Cyber-trespass leaves one in a state of doubt. It is commonly stated that the only manner of recovery from a system 
> compromise is to rebuild the host. I will resist quoting a voluminous amount of material at this point (unless somebody 
> wishes to dispute this :). It is needless to say that documents, working papers and processes on this topic are widely 
> available. SANS, CERT and the CIS all recommend that a compromised system be rebuilt, not from backup, but from scratch.
>
> Further one must "Resist the temptation of restoring from backups" *1 and complete an "entire system install be performed 
> from read-only distribution media".
>
> So here, we have to look to the cost of both rebuilding the system and recreating the data. In the modern corporation, 
> the primary assets are often vested in the intellectual capital of the firm.
>
> First, the system needs to be rebuilt as was listed above. There is no argument here (though I am willing to engage in 
> one) over the need to rebuild the system. The people at the company that was attacked do not and cannot know your 
> motives. They cannot assume you are benign, but have to assume that you are malignant being that you are willing to 
> break the law, that you are willing to face gaol.
>
> If they assume otherwise they will suffer again. How do they know that you have not installed a rootkit? How is it known that 
> there is no timebomb on the server. You as the attacker have already demonstrated that you are not bound my conventional morality 
> and ethics. You have violated property rights, entered and penetrated a system, breached the defences and raped the security of 
> the site you choose as just "practice".
>
> Every attacker that does this makes it easier for the truly malicious attacker to succeed.
>
> On top of this, add the loss due the unavailability, reputation and compliance costs. Let us for the moment forget the 
> costs of tort against the company. The costs of action for a violation of privacy rights. The costs from a violation of 
> PCI-DSS. HIPPA Violations or the effects to the companies share price.
>
> Costs. They seem to be all over the place when you actually think about it. Each of these costs is damage. This damage needs to be recovered. We all pay. 
>
> Now most organisations do not have, not can afford to retain skilled incident response professionals. They need to 
> employ external parties at a cost. Even when they do have internal staff there is a cost, but the accounting process is 
> not so simple.
>
> At rates (and this is based in Sydney, Australia) hiring personal from a respected firm (and it is not likely to be 
> less in the case of fear from an attack driving firms to a position of trust) will have a charge out rate in the order 
> of $ 250-450 per hour. The investigation will take 10 -100 hours (and in some cases longer though rare).
>
> Is the cost of damages when placed against the risk worth it. I hope not, but this is a personal risk decision for the 
> individual to decide. I can do little to stop you committing cyber-trespass just as I can do little to stop you robbing 
> a 7-11. Mind you however, I am a bit of an a*8hole. If I get involved I will (in my personal time if needs be) map out 
> every piece of information that you have done and ensure that every lie you tell to try to worm out (aimed at those who 
> still try to do this act) of the consequences is proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
>
> Animus nocendi or a mind to harm reference the precise familiarity of illegal content of behaviour, and of its possible 
> consequences. Now that you have read this post, it may be argued that you have come to understand that there are 
> consequences for your actions if you choose to still attack a system (aimed at those who do). Please feel free to flame 
> me as reading this post effectively provides the essential condition to give a penal condemnation if you still choose 
> to violate the law by breaking into systems and causing damage.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> PS
>
> So called.. NON-Malicous attacks have caused the following events to occur
>
> 1   Loss of human life (though systems damage)
>
> 2   Insolvancy and the resultant human costs (lost jobs, etc)
>
> so much for no damage... PPS even longer rant as to each of these with statistical data available ;)
>
>
> Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within 
> those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
>
> DISCLAIMER
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy.  
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice 
> unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by 
> a Partner of BDO.
>
> BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, 
> interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> EARN A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION ASSURANCE - ONLINE
> The Norwich University program offers unparalleled Infosec management 
> education and the case study affords you unmatched consulting experience. 
> Tailor your education to your own professional goals with degree 
> customizations including Emergency Management, Business Continuity Planning, 
> Computer Emergency Response Teams, and Digital Investigations. 
>
> http://www.msia.norwich.edu/secfocus
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EARN A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION ASSURANCE - ONLINE
The Norwich University program offers unparalleled Infosec management
education and the case study affords you unmatched consulting experience.
Tailor your education to your own professional goals with degree
customizations including Emergency Management, Business Continuity Planning,
Computer Emergency Response Teams, and Digital Investigations.

http://www.msia.norwich.edu/secfocus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------